Trump's Speech Research Articles

American media framing of Bush, Obama, and Trump speeches

Framing Theory is frequently used to understand the way individuals and agencies use word choice, connotation, and other factors to influence how others react to the information provided. For example, journalists use slant to influence the interpretation of their articles by the public. Through an examination of framing, individuals and agencies can gain insights into the reasons viewers or listeners react to communications in the way they do. The main goal of this article is to analyze how the American media frames presidents’ Bush, Obama, and Trump speeches regarding the Middle East and Iraq in particular, during their presidency of the United States.

Inflammatory Political Campaigns and Racial Bias in Policing

Abstract Can political rallies affect the behavior of law enforcement officers toward racial minorities? Using data from 35 million traffic stops, we show that the probability that a stopped driver is Black increases by 5.74% after a Trump rally during his 2015–2016 campaign. The effect is immediate, specific to Black drivers, lasts for up to 60 days after the rally, and is not justified by changes in driver behavior. The effects are significantly larger among law enforcement officers whose estimated racial bias is higher at baseline, in areas that score higher on present-day measures of racial resentment, those that experienced more racial violence during the Jim Crow era, and in former slave-holding counties. Mentions of racial issues in Trump speeches, whether explicit or implicit, exacerbate the effect of a Trump rally among officers with higher estimated racial bias.

"I LOVE THIS COUNTRY!”: PROSES MENTAL DALAM PIDATO-PIDATO DONALD TRUMP

Mental processes, as part of the ideational function in the metafunction of discourse, referto the search for concepts of thinking, knowledge, feelings, and desires of the speaker. Thisstudy aims to understand and explore the use and trend of using mental processes byDonald Trump in his 2016–2018 speeches. The data and data sources of this research areclauses containing mental processes in Trump's victory speech (2016), critical speeches inPhoenix (2017), and campaign speeches in Evansville Rally (2018). Data were collectedemploying a transcription study of speech texts and analyzed using the theory of FunctionalGrammar M.A.K Halliday and Systemic Functional Linguistics Suzzane Eggins and TriWiratno, which were concretized through tables and percentages. The findings show thedominance of the affective mental process, namely the most frequent mental process or thehighest frequency used by Donald Trump to show his love for the people (listeners), flag,and country.

Pejoration in Trump's Selected Speeches

The current study tries to pragmatically investigate pejoration in Trump's Selected Speeches. This analytic-descriptive study examines how Grice's (1975) cooperative principles are broken and maintained in some of former President Donald Trump's speeches. The study involves viewing and studying his speeches and interviews for harsh and ridiculous interpretations in the context of a variety of events selected at random from online sites. Its goal is to evaluate the violation and observance of Grice's (1975) cooperative principles (CPs) and maxims from a practical standpoint. Pragmatically, this study looks into a novel approach of looking at speakers' non-cooperative and cooperative attitudes, as well as their violations of the Cooperative Principles and their maxims, throughout the communication process. Conversational implicature and evaluation of Grice's four proposed maxims under the cooperative principle, are used to examine the work samples. To investigate and evaluate the data in question, the researcher has used both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. Grice's (1975) model is adopted in the current study. The results of the present study show that language can be utilized to spread pejoration, which is often employed indirectly by implying more senses than is overtly established. Pejorative utterances are more achieved in terms of conversational implicature than conventional ones. Additionally, the analysis of the current study has revealed that the violation of quantity maxim scores (1) occurrence with a percentage of (25%). As for the violation of quality maxim, it scores (4) occurrences with a percentage of (100%). Concerning the violation of manner maxim, it is about (3) occurrences with a percentage of (75%). Thus, the quality maxim represents the one that is frequently violated.

DONALD TRUMP’S PERSUASION TECHNIQUES IN THE U.S. PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE 2016

Persuasion is an important aspect of communication in our daily lives. The main purpose of persuasion is to convince other people to change their belief, attitude and behaviour. Here, the researcher wanted to find out the techniques of persuasion used by Donald Trump in his political speeches in American presidential election 2016. This research was designed by using descriptive qualitative method. here, the researcher used discourse analysis because the researcher tried to study and understand the functional use of language, that was, persuasion which was used by people in their conversation to influence other's attitude, belief and behavior. The data were Donald Trump’s utterances containing persuasion which were observed from his speeches within American presidential election. The data had represented all data of Donald Trump's speeches. The data were analyzed inductively through the observation done by the researcher himself. In addition, the approach for analyzing the technique of persuasion was based on the Gorys Keraf’s theory of persuasion. It was found that Donald Trump used several techniques of persuasion to get support from the audience and invest his idea in delivering his speeches. These techniques are: rationalization, identification, suggestion, conformities, compensation, displacement and projection.

A corpus discourse analysis of Donald Trump's speeches between 2015 and 2022

This study examines Trump's linguistic choices during the crises of 2015 and 2022. It also focuses on Trump's usage of modal structures, comparative and superlative forms, and pronouns. The study's goals were achieved the nouns, pronouns and modal auxiliaries were most frequently used by Donald Trump and- the most words frequently used by Donald Trump between 2015 and 2022 utilizing Fairclough's (1995) three-dimensional Critical Discourse Analysis paradigm. Trump uses "I" and "we" to emphasize American superiority and supremacy in his talks, according to the study. The results of this study revealed that Trump used polls to assess his popularity on the campaign trail. When the polls favored the Trump campaign.

A critical discourse analysis of Trump's election campaign speeches

This article presents a study in critical discourse analysis of Trump's election campaign speeches. Trump's speeches against immigrants have raised controversy in the world in general and in the United States in particular. Such speeches against immigrants might motivate Native Americans to enter a racial conflict with Muslims and other non-native Americans. The study adopts Van Dijk's (1991, 1995; 2006) discourse strategies. Therefore, this study aims to show how Trump ideologically invested these discursive strategies in the positive discourse of US (Trump, the majority of American people) and the negative discourse of THEM (Obama, Obama administration, Clinton, immigrants, especially Muslims). Based on data analysis, the study found out that Trump ideologically invested the (12) discourse strategies in almost all of the selected speeches for political interests. The study is hoped to encourage politicians to stop using language that is full of racism and sectarianism, because such language has negative results on innocent civilians.

TRUMP’IN BAŞKANLIK KONUŞMASINDAKİ KAVRAMSAL METAFORLAR

This study investigates how some conceptual metaphors in Trump's inauguration speech delivered in 2017, contributed to the formation of political discourse. As is often the case, by these speeches, the elected presidents reveal their goals and explain their visions in the national and international arenas. Such presidential speeches aim to persuade people and convey targeted messages and ideologies, using various linguistic tools to impact the masses substantially. Therefore, such speeches are political discourses with implicit and explicit meanings, and in this language, the unique words are meticulously chosen, and all the possibilities of the language are utilized. Accordingly, various linguistic methods and strategies are developed by each speaker, and these strategies are required to be examined. Some studies have been carried out to investigate the connection between language, power, and ideology through linguistic devices. Although various studies deal with the stylistic features of presidential speeches from many aspects, the number of related studies on conceptual metaphors is limited. This study will help us better understand the stylistic features of speech and the use of metaphors persuasively. The study was conducted pragmatically with Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Lakoff and Johnson's Conceptual Metaphor Theory (CMT). As a result of the study, it is clear that the speech was prepared skilfully to persuade the voters, and the conceptual metaphors used in this direction are distinctive cognitive devices for creating discourse strategies.

A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of Force Dynamics in Trump's Speeches

A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of Force Dynamics in Trump's Speeches

A Discoursal Study of Turn Taking in Political Interviews

A political interview or any type of conversation is a collaborative effort between all speakers involved. That is, participants, take turns, and the control of a conversation is negotiated by the parties involved. According to Richards (1980: 424), it is governed by turn-taking conventions that determine who talks, when, and for how long. For a successful collaboration to ensue, it is important for speakers to know how and when to take, hold onto, and relinquish their turns in conversation. This study highlights turn-taking as a strategy in Trump's speech. The study tries to show the importance of turn-taking use in political discourse and how it is dominated. The results of the study revealed that there are three strategies of turn-taking: taking the turn, holding the turn and yielding the turn, which Trump used them. Also, the study found that on some occasions, politicians make use of gestures and facial expressions to employ as turn-taking strategies.

Features of the Cognitive-Linguistic Analysis of the Speeches of American Politicians on the Example of D. Trump's Speech

Features of the Cognitive-Linguistic Analysis of the Speeches of American Politicians on the Example of D. Trump's Speech

Grammatical Cohesions in Inaugural Speeches of Barrack Obama and Donald Trump

The purpose of this thesis is to look at the different forms of grammatical cohesions and why they were used in Barack Obama's and Donald Trump's inaugural addresses. This thesis employs a descriptive qualitative technique to describe the study's issues in Barrack Obama's and Donald Trump's inaugural addresses. Based on Halliday and Hasan's theory, the data are collected using library research techniques and grouped into the categories of grammatical cohesions as well as the reasons for employing them. After examining both Barrack Obama's and Donald Trump's inaugural speeches, it can be determined that Barrack Obama's inaugural speech has three types of grammatical cohesions while Donald Trump's inaugural speech has four types of grammatical cohesions. In both speeches, such categories are used to connect two things' meanings, to replace one item with another, to delete an item, and to relate the previous or following material.

A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of Force Dynamics in Trump's Speeches

A Cognitive Linguistic Analysis of Force Dynamics in Trump's Speeches

EVALUASI PERSPEKTIF POLITIK TRUMP PADA “SAVE AMERICA RALLY”

(Title: The Evaluation of Trump’s Political Perspectives at The “Save America Rally”). This paper explores Trump speech in online media CBC news entitled “Live Coverage: Protesters Swarm Capitol, Abruptly Halting Electoral Vote Count” in the point of view of discourse analysis. This research belongs to qualitative research. The method used to analyze is distributional and referential method. It analyzed Trump ideology’s Perspectives through structure manifested by Emotive words, phrases, sentences from his speech, specifically it explored from critical discourse analysis conducted by Teun A .Van Dijk. It resulted and indicated that Trump conveyed his political will by protesting the result of the ballots. He said there was fraud in the middle of the election. In fact, instead of protesting the election, he also conveyed the autocritics towards the government (himself). Key Words: speech, Trumps, critical discourse analysis, ideology

Trump's January 6 Address: Hate Speech or Freedom of Speech? A Transdisciplinary Study

PurposeThis research is a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of Trump's speech on January 6, 2021, which results in his supporters' storming the US Capitol in order to challenge certifying Biden's victory. The Democrats accused Trump of incitement of insurrection. Consequently, Trump was impeached. This article investigates Trump's speech to label it as hate speech or free speech.Design/methodology/approachAnalytical framework is tri-dimensional. The textual analysis is based on Halliday's notion of process types and Huckin's discourse tools of foregrounding and topicalization. The socio-cognitive analysis is based on Van Dijk's ideological square and his theory of mental models. The philosophical dimension is founded on Habermas's theory of discourse. These parameters are the cornerstones of the barometer that will be utilized to reach an objective evaluation of Trump's speech.FindingsFindings suggest that Trump usually endows “I, We, You” with topic positions to lay importance on himself and his supporters. He frequently uses material process to urge the crowds' action. He categorizes Americans into two conflicting poles: He and his supporters versus the media and the Democrats. Mental models are created and activated so that the other is always negatively depicted. Reports about corruption are denied in court. Despite that, Trump repeats such reports. This is immoral in Habermas's terms. The study concludes that Trump delivered hate speech in order to incite the mob to act in a manner that may change the election results.Originality/valueThe study is original in its tri-dimensional framework and its data of analysis.

Raising awareness against fake news to protect democracy: the myth of Islamophobia in Trump's speech

ABSTRACT Fake news is being disseminated rapidly and it is discussed constantly on social media through “likes”, sharing and comments. Fake news undermined the contribution of media and gives space to powerful institution and specific parties to promote their policies as given. In this paper, I discuss that in order to understand in depth the fake news/disinformation, a phenomenon that threats democracy, each citizen should have the ability to connect the context, the words, the image and the extralinguistic features in order to “read” behind the lines and identify the intentions that are hidden. To support this claim, a specific excerpt from fake news by Donald Trump is being analysed thoroughly with the combination of Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) and Social Semiotics (SS). From the analysis it is shown that not fake news merely, but rather elaborated myths are being constructed which attribute characteristics in social groups, in order to serve specific goals.

Critical Discourse Analysis of Political Discourse — A Case Study of Trump's TV Speech

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an effective method of the discourse analysis. It is aimed at analyzing the special relationship between power and the traditional ideology in implied discourse. Traditional discourse analysis always analyzes the structure and composition of discourse in terms of linguistic features, CDA makes language analysis more creative. It deeply explores the inherent potential of language and systematically interprets the deep meaning of discourse. This paper will take the specific corpus, namely Trump's TV speech, as the language material, Halliday's systematic functional grammar as the theoretical basis, and physicality, modality and personal pronoun as the framework. This paper studies how speakers in political speech use language to shorten the distance between people and win people's affirmation and support from the aspects of transitivity analysis, modality analysis and personal pronoun.

A STUDY ON THE CONCEPT OF THIRD PLACE IN DONALD TRUMP'S SPEECH AT RIYADH SUMMIT ON MAY 2017

The current study investigates the concept of third place in the 47 American President Donald Trump’s speech at the Islamic summit held in Riyadh in May 2017. The researcher intends to examine if his speech includes some features of third-place or not. To achieve the study's aims, the researcher investigates the following topics related to Trump's speech in Riyadh if Donald Trump succeeded in using and applying the third place and its approaches to persuade them for pure and seamless reconciliation. The result shows some third-place features, such as the full awareness of the historical roots of tensions between the West and Muslim countries. The use of the first-person pronouns (Agency) refers to Trump’s declaration on several occasions that Islam is the religion of terrorism, and extremism needed to be faced. Moreover, Trump used techniques to approach the Muslim world throughout the third pace, such as logic and avoidance techniques and intertextuality.

EUPHEMISM AND DYSPHEMISM STRATEGIES IN DONALD TRUMP’S SPEECH AT SOTU 2020

In this article, the researchers aim to explain the types and functions of the use of expressions of euphemism and dysphemism in President Donald Trump's speeches at the State of the Union Address 2020. With Donald Trump's controversial background and many of his statements attracting attention, researchers assume that Trump uses many expressions of euphemism and dysphemism in his speech. This study uses Allan's and Burridge's (1991) theoretical framework on euphemism and dysphemism as the base for data analysis. This study's data were taken from Trump's utterances in his speech. This study uses a qualitative descriptive research method to carry out in-depth analysis. The results of this study indicate that there are eight types of euphemistic expressions, five types of dysphemism, eight functions of euphemisms, and six functions of dysphemism.

Media Discourse Comparative Analysis of Trump's Speech in Daily Kompas and Gazeta.Ru

This paper aims to analyze the media discourses of President Donald Trump's speech at the United States Congress on February 4, 2020. This article is interesting because, in America, the political tension is high because of the President's impeachment trial by the Democratic opposition. We apply the following methods: an inductive, descriptive and comparative, cognitive and discursive analysis, semantic, definition, functional, and stylistic to analyzing text, photographs, and video contents message in the news. To determine which structural features and content in the publications were analyzed, a comparative and quantitative analysis (content analysis) of the daily quality publication Kompas and the Russian daily Gazeta.ru with the title of President Trump's speech on Tuesday, February 5, 2020.